RAMA KISAN KATARE, SANGLI V. ITO,WARD 2(3), SANGLI

ITA 2096/PUN/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Rama Kisan Katare, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur, which upheld the Income Tax Officer's (ITO) decision denying his claim of agricultural income amounting to Rs.25,20,021 for the assessment year 2015-16. The ITO had initially assessed his agricultural income at Rs.28,30,044, which was significantly higher than the previous years' returns of Rs.60,000 each. The CIT(A) and the ITO found inconsistencies in the land records and the crops claimed to be grown by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the agricultural income was largely based on estimations and not on concrete evidence like sale bills or detailed records of the crops grown. The Tribunal's decision to estimate the agricultural income at Rs.10 lakhs was made to avoid setting a precedent, acknowledging the lack of verification of the vegetable crops claimed by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137348 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowedPartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 25-12-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2096/PUN./2019 Assessment Year 2015-16 Shri Rama Kisan Katare, At-Vithuraychi Wadi, Post Hingangaon Tal-Kavate Mahankal, Sangli Maharashtra – 416 405 PAN CEDPK8663L vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2 (3), Ayakar Bhawan, South Shivaji Nagar, Sangli. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 23.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2015- 16, arises against the CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur’s order dated 10.10.2019, passed in case No. KOP/10214/2017-18, involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 4. We next note that the assessee has raised his sole substantive grievance challenging the correctness of both the 2 ITA.No.2096/PUN./2019 Sh Rama Kisan Katare, Vithuraychi Wadi, Post Hingangaon, Sangli. lower authorities action denying his claim of agricultural income to the extent of Rs.25,20,021/- during the course of assessment dated 26.12.2017 as upheld in the CIT(A)'s order as follows : “5. I have carefully considered the matter and I find that the assessee is 1/5 owner of the land parcel at Gat No. 172, 173, 176 and 60. He is not the owner of the Gat no. 179. I further find that no crops were taken at Gat No. 172 which is only a borewell, Bajri, sugarcane and cucumber have been grown on the land at Gat No. 173 as per the 7/12 extracts relevant to the FY 2014-15. Similarly, pomegranate have been grown on Gat no. 176 and bajri has been grown at Gat no. 60. These facts clearly indicate that only these crops have been grown on the three Gat numbers. The claim of the assessee therefore that he has grown green vegetables and fruits as detailed in his submissions before the AO is clearly incorrect on facts. The AO has fairly estimated jowar, grape and pomegranate grown at the three Gat numbers by the assessee. I may also clarify that Gat no. 179 does not stand in the name of the assessee and almost entirely pertains to the sugarcane crop which is the rabi crop and shallu is the kharif crop. Thus, the claim of the assessee that sugarcane also has been grown by him is again 3 ITA.No.2096/PUN./2019 Sh Rama Kisan Katare, Vithuraychi Wadi, Post Hingangaon, Sangli. factually incorrect. This is clearly evident from the narration in the 7 / 12 extracts. 6. The assessee in his defence has produced before me a certificate in Marathi on a plain piece of paper apparently signed by one Shri SP Raut who is the Mandal Krish Adhikari, Rajani, Tal. Kavthemahankal, Dist. Sangli dated 11/12/2017 which certifies that Gat no. 60, 172, 173, 176 and 179 have been inspected by him and have wells as well as borewells. It also certifies that on these lands corn, udid, vegetables, lady fingers, chillies etc. have been grown. This certificate is relied on by the assessee to support his stand that he has grown green vegetables and fruit vegetables. I am at a loss to understand as to how the District Agricultural Officer is issuing a certificate in December, 2017 for events which have taken place in FY 2014-15 and moreover which have not been recorded in the 7/12 extracts. I therefore reject this so called certificate as merely an afterthought and a self-serving document. In any case the District Agricultural Officer has not at all indicated the basis of his statement. Based on the discussion above, it is evident that the assessee is not able to provide details of his gross agricultural income, he is not able to provide sale bills of any of the agricultural produce, he has not been able to 4 ITA.No.2096/PUN./2019 Sh Rama Kisan Katare, Vithuraychi Wadi, Post Hingangaon, Sangli. prove that he has grown green vegetables or fruit vegetables on the lands which therefore cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the gross agricultural income. 7. The assessee of course is silent on the fact that in the earlier two years the agricultural income was returned at Rs 60,000 each which has all of a sudden jumped to more than Rs 28 lakhs in this year. It is all too convenient that the entire agricultural sales are received in cash which are sufficient to cover the cash deposited by the assessee in his bank account. The facts as narrated by me above are extracted from the 7/12 extracts which is the assessee's own evidence. These facts clearly point out to a fabricated agricultural income, which is then claimed to be the source of cash deposited in the bank account. Based on this discussion, I do not see the need to interfere with the conclusion of the AO. All the grounds of appeal being related to the single action of the AO are therefore, dismissed. The addition of Rs 25,20,021 is sustained and all grounds are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. The Ld. DR vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly accepted the assessee’s claim of having derived agricultural income to 5 ITA.No.2096/PUN./2019 Sh Rama Kisan Katare, Vithuraychi Wadi, Post Hingangaon, Sangli. the extent of Rs.3,10,023/- as against Rs.28,30,044/- in issue thereby making addition of Rs.25,20,021/-. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant arguments in entirety. This is for the reason that both the learned lower authorities have largely gone by the estimation figures as per the agricultural department to partly accept the impugned agricultural income claim of Rs.28,30,044/- only to the extent of Rs.3,10,023/-. They have not further appeared not to have consider the assessee’s exclusive possession of the land vis-à-vis source of irrigation as well as the prevalent rates of the concerned crops i.e., jawar, grape and pomegranate. This is indeed coupled with the assessee’s claim that he has also sown green vegetables on his land. The Revenue vehemently argued that such green vegetables are nowhere verified from the corresponding revenue records. 6. The Ld. DR could hardly dispute that such crop records are prepared in the specified periods of the year, whereas most of the vegetables concerned have much less sowing time of a few months only. Faced with the situation, we deem it appropriate to estimate the assessee’s agricultural income of Rs.28,30,044/- to a lumpsum figure of Rs.10 lakhs only and confirm the impugned addition to the extent of Rs.18,30,044/- in very terms with a rider that the same shall 6 ITA.No.2096/PUN./2019 Sh Rama Kisan Katare, Vithuraychi Wadi, Post Hingangaon, Sangli. not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.01.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 10 th January, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. CIT(A) concerned. 4. The CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches Pune.